Quantum physics study shows future events can affect the past.

[fromderinside]

Barbos, this is an actual excerpt from the study's synopsis.

Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place.

Source: http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3343.html

Hmmm . . . Sounds exactly like what you said.

I know. I'm just as surprised as you to find out that peer-review published researchers are just as smart as a wikipedia learned intellectual like yourself!

Unfortunately we don't know all the marbles in play at the quantum level since they are beyond our capability, perhaps anyone in our space's multidimensionality, to measure or even observe. We can only hold that evidence at our level to measure which consistently demonstrates causality is relevant to presume causality is relevant at the quantum level.

We have two problems. Are all the marbles in play accounted in our experiments and does causality apply when we do those Q level experiments?

I'm still betting on we don't know all the marbles in play rather than jumping to a conclusion that what we measure knows something that it doesn't have access to before we observe it, or, that that something is accounted in our experimental set up.

Since Quantum Mechanics is theorized at a statistical level and that statistical level works when it is apparent we have all the balls accounted I'm guessing we are missing something when we do these experiments that turn up at odds with causality.

 

[barbos]

Barbos, this is an actual excerpt from the study's synopsis.

Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place.

Source: http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3343.html

Hmmm . . . Sounds exactly like what you said.

I know. I'm just as surprised as you to find out that peer-review published researchers are just as smart as a wikipedia learned intellectual like yourself!

I am actually a physicist

 

[bilby]

Barbos, this is an actual excerpt from the study's synopsis.



Source: http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3343.html

Hmmm . . . Sounds exactly like what you said.

I know. I'm just as surprised as you to find out that peer-review published researchers are just as smart as a wikipedia learned intellectual like yourself!

I am actually a physicist

I am actually Napoleon Bonaparte.

 

[barbos]

I am actually a physicist

I am actually Napoleon Bonaparte.

That supposed to be a point of some kind?

 

[fromderinside]

I am actually Napoleon Bonaparte.

That supposed to be a point of some kind?

set and match!

 

[barbos]

Napoleon Bonaparte is not a physicist so his opinion is irrelevant

 

[Kharakov]

Napoleon Bonaparte is not a physicist so his opinion is irrelevant

Dude, he is lying. He is actually Hitler, posing as Bonaparte.

However he has exposed the fact that Russians can't tell them apart, because they are prejudiced against invading leaders.

 

[fromderinside]

Napoleon Bonaparte is not a physicist so his opinion is irrelevant

Yet he knew where to best position canon. Weird, right?

 

[Achwienichtig]

Barbos, here's the thing. You said this:

They assume that particle "decides" to behave one way or another at certain time, for example when it passes through apparatus arranged certain way, but in reality "decision" is done at the latest possible moment so to speak.
So nothing is "decided" until everything is actually measured

.

Now, the researcher said this:

Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place.

Also in the article, the researcher said this:

The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wavelike or particle-like behavior was brought into existence.

Did you not read the article? The researcher is saying exactly the same thing you are saying; yet, you keep ascribing the opposite view to the researcher and then you keep claiming that he is mistaken about this opposite view, which he in fact does not hold.

You seem to be upset about one thing the researcher said in relation to time and causation. In your attempt to show him wrong, however, you keep creating strawmen to discredit his research.

Stop it.

 

[ronburgundy]

I have a question related, I think, to barbos' comment about assumptions made regarding the timing of these events.


Did they actually measure Y at T1 , then only after measuring Y, randomly manipulate what happened at T2?

IOW, was their research design essentially the same as directly measuring whether a glass of milk was spilled or not at 10:00, then only after this has been determined, having a random generator determine whether a robot arm knocks the glass over at 10:01?

IF the answer isn't simply, "yes", then it sounds like they are not observing reverse causal time sequence, but inferring it based upon non-observed but inferred timing of the T1 event.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It seems to me that if you're doing an experiment involving time travel, it's pretty easy to get your predictions to match your conclusions.

 

[barbos]

Barbos, here's the thing. You said this:

.

Now, the researcher said this:

Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place.

Also in the article, the researcher said this:

The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wavelike or particle-like behavior was brought into existence.

Did you not read the article? The researcher is saying exactly the same thing you are saying; yet, you keep ascribing the opposite view to the researcher and then you keep claiming that he is mistaken about this opposite view, which he in fact does not hold.

You seem to be upset about one thing the researcher said in relation to time and causation. In your attempt to show him wrong, however, you keep creating strawmen to discredit his research.

Stop it.

I did not read the article.
But if they agree with me then they should not have published it.

 

[skepticalbip]

It seems to me that if you're doing an experiment involving time travel, it's pretty easy to get your predictions to match your conclusions.

Yeah, the problem would be getting your postdictions right.

 

[bilby]

It seems to me that if you're doing an experiment involving time travel, it's pretty easy to get your predictions to match your conclusions.

Yeah, the problem would be getting your postdictions right.

I knew you'd say that.

 

[Kharakov]

It seems to me that if you're doing an experiment involving time travel, it's pretty easy to get your predictions to match your conclusions.

The last time I made a self referential prophecy, everyone died laughing.

 

[Achwienichtig]

I did not read the article.
But if they agree with me then they should not have published it.

I think they do agree with you, but I also think they are trying to say one thing in addition. At what point does the pathway between A and B need to be in place in order for the particle to get from A to B. They seem to be saying that the pathway can be put into place remarkably late. In fact, the pathway can be put into place so late, if the particle were behaving according to Newtonian physics, the pathway would have been too late for the particle to follow it. But because the particle obeys quantum physics, it can still follow the pathway.

 

[skepticalbip]

I did not read the article.
But if they agree with me then they should not have published it.

I think they do agree with you, but I also think they are trying to say one thing in addition. At what point does the pathway between A and B need to be in place in order for the particle to get from A to B. They seem to be saying that the pathway can be put into place remarkably late. In fact, the pathway can be put into place so late, if the particle were behaving according to Newtonian physics, the pathway would have been too late for the particle to follow it. But because the particle obeys quantum physics, it can still follow the pathway.

If that was the point then it isn't new. Schrodinger and Heisenberg pretty much explained that in quite a bit of detail with their probability distribution function and uncertainty principle. Quantum events aren't Newtonian.

 

[Achwienichtig]

I think they do agree with you, but I also think they are trying to say one thing in addition. At what point does the pathway between A and B need to be in place in order for the particle to get from A to B. They seem to be saying that the pathway can be put into place remarkably late. In fact, the pathway can be put into place so late, if the particle were behaving according to Newtonian physics, the pathway would have been too late for the particle to follow it. But because the particle obeys quantum physics, it can still follow the pathway.

If that was the point then it isn't new. Schrodinger and Heisenberg pretty much explained that in quite a bit of detail with their probability distribution function and uncertainty principle. Quantum events aren't Newtonian.

Why the hell do people keep reminding me that quantum events aren't Newtonian? When did I ever say they were?

ETA: I think to new part is that actual method they created for adding the pathway in at such a "late" moment. This led the researcher (rightly or wrongly) to compare it time going backwards. Perhaps the metaphor would have been better off unsaid.

 

[fromderinside]

I think they do agree with you, but I also think they are trying to say one thing in addition. At what point does the pathway between A and B need to be in place in order for the particle to get from A to B. They seem to be saying that the pathway can be put into place remarkably late. In fact, the pathway can be put into place so late, if the particle were behaving according to Newtonian physics, the pathway would have been too late for the particle to follow it. But because the particle obeys quantum physics, it can still follow the pathway.

If that was the point then it isn't new. Schrodinger and Heisenberg pretty much explained that in quite a bit of detail with their probability distribution function and uncertainty principle. Quantum events aren't Newtonian.

Would that be because particles and waves aren't primary quantum stuff? Or, would that be because we can't yet parse, if those are primary quantum stuff, the interchanges that get to them to being components of primary stuff.

 

[skepticalbip]

If that was the point then it isn't new. Schrodinger and Heisenberg pretty much explained that in quite a bit of detail with their probability distribution function and uncertainty principle. Quantum events aren't Newtonian.

Would that be because particles and waves aren't primary quantum stuff? Or, would that be because we can't yet parse, if those are primary quantum stuff, the interchanges that get to them to being components of primary stuff.

Personal opinion is that the particle and/or wave description is just our way of dealing with measurement of quantum events (that aren't truly either) in our macro world. The term, wavicle, has been used some but hasn't really caught on but may still be misleading. Probably the only way to describe quantum events is mathematically... that trying to describe them in our macro-world imagery or metaphors just leads to misunderstanding and confusion.